Abstract
This Chapter analyses the recent changes in the regulatory environment for open wireless networks in Germany. Starting from the general liability principles for online intermediaries, in particular the concept of Störerhaftung, recent case law regarding the liability of network operators for unlawful acts by network users is examined. Against this background, the Chapter considers whether the latest reform of the Tele Media Act, which aims at creating the necessary legal environment for better Wi-fi coverage in Germany, is well designed to achieve its aim. It is argued that in its current form the new law does not provide the necessary legal certainty for network operators. The Chapter concludes that the German legislator should have waited for a clarification of the legal framework at the European level and may have to revise again the Tele Media Act in the light of the recent CJEU ruling in the McFadden case.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
According to the German Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWi) there are only 1.87 WLAN Hotspots per 10,000 inhabitants in Germany (as compared to 37.35 in South Korea, 28.67 in the United Kingdom and 9.94 in Sweden), see BMWi Website: <http://www.bmwi.de/DE/Themen/Digitale-Welt/Netzpolitik/rechtssicherheit-wlan.html> (all websites last visited 31 March 2017).
- 2.
Open wireless networks are not only an essential part of the infrastructure for the digital economy, they also play an important role as a communication infrastructure in case of natural disasters where they can facilitate emergency services. For examples see the open letter formulated by the Electronic Frontier Foundation regarding the McFadden case (C-484/14) available at <https://www.eff.org/files/2015/07/20/closedwifiasanobstacletolegitimatetrade-4.pdf>
- 3.
Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung, Entwurf eines Zweiten Gesetzes zur Änderung des Telemediengesetzes of 25 September 2015, Bundesrat-Drucksache 440/15. The original legislative proposal also provided for an amendment of the Tele Media Act to the effect that host providers whose business model is largely established on violations of IPRs are no longer able to rely on the liability privilege under § 10 Tele Media Act. In the final version adopted by the German Parliament in June 2016 this part of the proposal has been dropped. For details see Volkmann 2015, 289, 291.
- 4.
CJEU, Judgment of 15 September 2016, McFadden, C-484/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:689.
- 5.
- 6.
See Hoeren and Yankova 2012, 503.
- 7.
- 8.
The application of the doctrine of Störerhaftung in the context of IPRs was well established before the age of the Internet. Based on this concept, injunctions could be issued, for example, against freight carriers who were unaware of transporting goods infringing third party trademarks, see e.g. BGH, Judgment of 15 January 1957, Case ref. I ZR 56/55, GRUR 1957, 352; see also Neuhaus 2011, 44 and Kur 2014, 532.
- 9.
- 10.
Kur 2014, 533.
- 11.
- 12.
See e.g. BGH, Judgment of 11 March 2004, Case ref. I ZR 304/01, MMR 2004, 668 at 670 (Internetversteigerung I); BGH, Judgment of 19 April 2007, Case ref. I ZR 35/04, MMR 2007, 507 at 508 (Internetversteigerung II); BGH, Judgment of 30 April 2008, Case ref. I ZR 73/05, MMR 2008, 531 at 532 (Internetversteigerung III); see also Kur 2014, 533.
- 13.
See infra, Section “Scope of the liability privilege for access providers”.
- 14.
- 15.
- 16.
Bundesgerichtshof, Judgment of 12 May 2010, Case ref. I ZR 121/08, GRUR 2010, 633 (Sommer unseres Lebens).
- 17.
In two more recent decisions local courts in Frankfurt am Main and Hamburg decided that the WLAN subscriber complies with his duty of care if he does not change the individual 13-digit password printed on the back of the router. This password usually meets the high safety standard by the Bundesgerichtshof, see Landgericht Frankfurt am Main, Judgment of 14 June 2013, Case ref. 30 C 3078/12 (75), MMR 2013, 605 at 607; Amtsgericht Hamburg, Judgment of 9 January 2015, Case ref. 36a C 40/14, BeckRS 2015, 08939.
- 18.
Hoeren and Jakopp 2014, 73. The BGH only discusses whether § 10 Tele Media Act concerning host providers is applicable in the case, which is eventually answered in the negative.
- 19.
See supra, Section “The Concept of Störerhaftung ”.
- 20.
BGH, Judgment of 15 November 2012, Case ref. I ZR 74/12, NJW 2013, 1441 (Morpheus).
- 21.
BGH, Judgment of 11 June 2015, Case ref. I ZR 7/14, NJW 2016, 942 (Tauschbörse II); see also Obergfell 2016a, 910.
- 22.
BGH, Judgment of 8 January 2014, Case ref. I ZR 169/12, NJW 2014, 2360 (BearShare).
- 23.
Ibid. para. 27–29.
- 24.
- 25.
Landgericht Frankfurt am Main, Judgment of 18 August 2010, Case ref. 2-6 S 19/09, MMR 2011, 401.
- 26.
Landgericht Frankfurt am Main, Judgment of 28 June 2013, Case ref. 2-06 O 304/12, GRUR-RR 2013, 507.
- 27.
Amtsgericht Hamburg, Judgment of 10 June 2014, Case ref. 25b C 431/13, CR 2014, 536; see also Amtsgericht Hamburg, Judgment of 24 June 2014, Case ref. 25b C 924/13, BeckRS 2014, 13884.
- 28.
Landgericht Frankfurt am Main, Judgment of 18 August 2010, Case ref. 2-6 S 19/09, MMR 2011, 401; Amtsgericht Hamburg, Judgment of 10 June 2014, Case ref. 25b C 431/13, CR 2014, 536; Amtsgericht Koblenz, Judgment of 18 June 2014, Case ref. 161 C 145/14, BeckRS 2014, 15122.
- 29.
Amtsgericht München, Judgment of 15 February 2012, Case ref. 142 C 10921/11, CR 2012, 340.
- 30.
Landgericht Frankfurt am Main, Judgment of 28 June 2013, Case ref. 2-06 O 304/12, GRUR-RR 2013, 507; Amtsgericht Hamburg, Judgment of 24 June 2014, Case ref. 25b C 924/13, BeckRS 2014, 13884.
- 31.
Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main, Judgment of 16 December 2014, Case ref. 30 C 2801/14 (32), NJOZ 2015, 588.
- 32.
Landgericht Hamburg, Decision of 25 November 2010, Case ref. 310 O 433/10, MMR 2011, 475.
- 33.
Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, Judgment of 17 December 2014, Case ref. 217 C 121/14, CR 2015, 192.
- 34.
Sesing 2015, 424; cf. also CJEU, Judgment of 27 March 2014, UPC Telekabel Wien, C-314/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:192, para 49, where the Court notes that ‘the freedom to conduct a business includes, inter alia, the right for any business to be able to freely use, within the limits of its liability for its own acts, the economic, technical and financial resources available to it’.
- 35.
Bundesgerichtshof, Judgment of 12 May 2010, Case ref. I ZR 121/08, GRUR 2010, 633 (Sommer unseres Lebens), para. 24; see also BGH, Judgment of 11 March 2004, Case ref. I ZR 304/01, MMR 2004, 668 at 670 (Internetversteigerung I), para. 671.
- 36.
For an overview of the discussion and recent proposals see Mantz and Sassenberg 2015a, 298.
- 37.
- 38.
Entwurf eines Zweiten Gesetzes zur Änderung des Telemediengesetzes of 11 March 2015. A revised draft was published on 15 June 2015. Both drafts are available at the website of the German Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy: <http://www.bmwi.de/BMWi/Redaktion/PDF/S-T/telemedienaenderungsgesetz-aenderung>. Multiple language versions of the revised draft, which has been notified to the European Commission under the EU Technical Regulation Information System (TRIS) and is currently being scrutinized for compatibility with EU law, are available online: <http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/tris/en/> (Notification Number: 2015/0305/D).
- 39.
Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung, Entwurf eines Zweiten Gesetzes zur Änderung des Telemediengesetzes of 25 September 2015, Bundesrat-Drucksache 440/15.
- 40.
Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar, 16 March 2016, C-484/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:170.
- 41.
Case C-484 (Tobias McFadden v. Sony Music Entertainment Germany GmbH).
- 42.
Bundesgesetzblatt I 2016, 1766.
- 43.
- 44.
- 45.
- 46.
See § 13(6) of the Tele Media Act (emphasis supplied). There is some disagreement whether § 13(6) Tele Media Act gives the user only a right to anonymity towards other users or also towards the service provider. Cf. Schnabel and Freund 2010, 718.
- 47.
Drücke 2015, 95. Effective protection against violation of IPRs and personality rights would only possible if the WLAN operators were entitled to record and retain communication data, which, however, would be incompatible with the principle of telecommunications secrecy under § 88 Telecommunications Act.
- 48.
See the case law cited supra at section “Private networks”.
- 49.
BGH, Judgment of 8 January 2014, Case ref. I ZR 169/12, NJW 2014, 2360 (BearShare).
- 50.
Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar, 16 March 2016, C-484/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:170.
- 51.
Case C-484 (Tobias McFadden v. Sony Music Entertainment Germany GmbH).
- 52.
Beschlussempfehlung und Bericht des Ausschusses für Wirtschaft und Energie zu dem Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung – Drucksache 18/6745, Bundestag-Drucksache 18/8645.
- 53.
Bundesgesetzblatt I 2016, 1766.
- 54.
See Flisek, Klingbeil & Held, ‘Freies WLAN in Deutschland kommt!’ <http://blogs.spdfraktion.de/netzpolitik/2016/05/11/wlan/>
- 55.
- 56.
Spindler 2016b, 2452.
- 57.
- 58.
Case C-484/14 (Tobias McFadden v. Sony Music Entertainment Germany GmbH).
- 59.
- 60.
BGH, Judgment of 12 May 2010, Case ref. I ZR 121/08, GRUR 2010, 633 (Sommer unseres Lebens).
- 61.
Question 1 referred to CJEU by the Landgericht München, Decision of 18 September 2014, Case ref. 7 O 14719/12, GRUR Int. 2014, 1166 at 1169.
- 62.
Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar, 16 March 2016, C-484/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:170, para. 41.
- 63.
Ibid. at paras. 42 and 48.
- 64.
CJEU, Judgment of 15 September 2016, McFadden, C-484/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:689, para. 41.
- 65.
CJEU, Judgment of 11 September 2014, Papasavvas, C-291/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2209, para. 29; see also CJEU, Judgment of 26 April 1988, Bond van Adverteerders, 352/85, ECLI: EU:C:1988:196, para. 16.
- 66.
See Recital 18 of the E-Commerce Directive.
- 67.
A quite similar question arises with regard to the scope of application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU. According to the definition in Art 2(6) of the Directive, the notion of ‘service contract’ means ‘any contract other than a sales contract under which the trader supplies or undertakes to supply a service to the consumer and the consumer pays or undertakes to pay the price thereof’ [emphasis added]. Based on this definition the German legislator has restricted the scope of application of the provisions implementing the Directive to contracts for a ‘paid service’ (entgeltliche Leistung) in § 312(1) of the Civil Code. It is doubtful, however, whether such a limitation can be justified in light of the nature of the digital economy, cf. Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar, 16 March 2016, C-484/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:170, para. 47.
- 68.
Ibid. at para. 50; see also CJEU, Judgment of 15 September 2016, McFadden, C-484/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:689, para. 37.
- 69.
Questions 2 and 3 raised by the Munich court deal with the interpretation of the phrase ‘transmission in a communication network of information’ and the term ‘provide’ within the meaning of Art 12 of the E-Commerce Directive. It seems rather obvious that the provision of an open WLAN does fulfill these requirements, cf. Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar, 16 March 2016, C-484/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:170, paras. 51–56.
- 70.
Ibid. at para. 37.
- 71.
Until the CJEU clarifies this point, free WLAN operators would be well advised to link the provision of their services to an economic activity. For this purpose it might be sufficient if the landing page or the name of the WLAN network is used for advertising a commercial service.
- 72.
CJEU, Judgment of 15 September 2016, McFadden, C-484/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:689, paras. 76–78.
- 73.
BGH, Judgment of 11 March 2004, Case ref. I ZR 304/01, MMR 2004, 668 at 670 (Internetversteigerung I); BGH, Judgment of 19 April 2007, Case ref. I ZR 35/04, MMR 2007, 507 at 508 (Internetversteigerung II); BGH, Judgment of 30 April 2008, Case ref. I ZR 73/05, MMR 2008, 531 at 532 (Internetversteigerung III).
- 74.
- 75.
Landgericht München, Decision of 18 September 2014, Case ref. 7 O 14719/12, GRUR Int. 2014, 1166 at 1170.
- 76.
- 77.
Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar, 16 March 2016, C-484/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:170, para. 74.
- 78.
See e.g. § 97a para. 1 German Copyright Act.
- 79.
For an overview see Schmitz and Ries 2012.
- 80.
Spindler 2016b, 2451.
- 81.
CJEU, Judgment of 15 September 2016, McFadden, C-484/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:689, paras. 77–78.
- 82.
Bisle and Frommer 2017, 61.
- 83.
Spindler 2016b, 2451.
- 84.
CJEU, Judgment of 15 September 2016, McFadden, C-484/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:689, paras. 81–83.
- 85.
CJEU, Judgment of 29 January 2008, C-275/06, Promusicae, ECLI:EU:C:2008:54, paras 68–70; CJEU, Judgment of 27 March 2014, UPC Telekabel Wien, C-314/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:192, para. 47. For an example of such a balancing of fundamental rights based on the principles set out in UPC Telekabel Wien see now also BGH, Judgments of 26 November 2015, Case ref. I ZR 174/14, NJW 2016, 794 (Goldesel) and Case ref. I ZR 3/14, ZUM-RD 2016, 156 (3dl.am); see also Hofmann 2016, 769.
- 86.
CJEU, Judgment of 15 September 2016, McFadden, C-484/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:689, para. 87.
- 87.
Ibid. at paras. 88–89.
- 88.
Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar, 16 March 2016, C-484/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:170, at para. 146.
- 89.
Ibid. at para. 150.
- 90.
CJEU, Judgment of 15 September 2016, McFadden, C-484/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:689, para. 96.
- 91.
Ibid. at para. 99.
- 92.
See Nordemann 2016, 1103.
- 93.
- 94.
- 95.
Entwurf eines Dritten Gesetzes zur Änderung des Telemediengesetzes of 23 February 2017. The draft is available at the website of the German Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy: http://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Artikel/Service/Gesetzesvorhaben/entwurf-telemediengesetz-drei.html.
- 96.
For a more detailed discussion of this question see Husovec 2016.
- 97.
Oberlandesgericht Köln, Judgment of 18 July 2014, Case ref. 6 U 192/11, MMR 2014, 832 at 836; on the technical possibilities for the blocking of access to certain websites and the legal implications see also Leistner and Grisse 2015, 19-27 and 105–115.
- 98.
Ohly 2015, 317; see also Landgericht Hamburg, Judgment of 20 October 2010, Case ref. 308 O 320/10, ZUM-RD 2011, 561.
References
Bisle, R., and B. Frommer. 2017. EuGH klärt Verantwortlichkeit bei anonym nutzbaren WLAN-Hotspots – Das Ende der Pläne zur “Abschaffung der Störerhaftung”?’ Computer und Recht 32: 54–63.
Borges, G. 2010. Pflichten und Haftung beim Betrieb privater WLAN. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 63: 2624–2627.
———. 2014. Die Haftung des Internetanschlussinhabers für Urheberrechtsverletzungen durch Dritte. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 67(32): 2305–2310.
Busch, C. 2014. Secondary liability of service providers. In German national reports on the 19th international congress of comparative law, ed. Schmidt-Kessel, 765–779. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Conraths, T., and S. Peintinger. 2016. Der neue § 8 TMG: Kein Wegfall der Störerhaftung von W-LAN-Betreibern. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht. Praxis im Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht 8(14): 297.
Drücke, F. 2015. Haftung bei offenem WLAN? Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik 48(3): 95.
Hoeren, T., and S. Jakopp. 2014. WLAN-Haftung – A never ending story? Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik 47(3): 72–75.
Hoeren, T., and S. Yankova. 2012. The liability of Internet intermediaries – The German perspective. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 43(5): 501–531.
Hofmann, F. 2014. Die Haftung des Inhabers eines privaten Internetanschlusses für Urheberrechtsverletzungen Dritter. Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht 58(8): 654–660.
———. 2016. Störerhaftung von Access-Providern für Urheberrechtsverletzungen Dritter. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 69(11): 769.
Husovec, M. 2016. Accountable, not liable: Injunctions against Intermediaries. Tilburg Law and Economics Center (TILEC) Discussion Paper 2016. Available at. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2773768
———. 2017. Holey cap! CJEU drills (yet) another hole in the e-Commerce Directive’s safe harbours. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 12(2): 115–125.
Kaeding, N. 2010. Haftung für Hot Spot Netze. Computer und Recht 26: 164–171.
Kur, A. 2014. Secondary Liability for Trademark Infringement on the Internet: The Situation in Germany and the Throughout the EU. Columbia Journal of Law & The Arts 37: 525–540.
Lehmann, M. 2015. Digitalisierung, cloud computing and Urheberrecht. GRUR Int. 64: 677–681.
Leistner, M. 2014. Structural aspects of secondary (provider) liability in Europe. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 9: 75–90.
Leistner, M., and K. Grisse. 2015. Sperrverfügungen gegen Access-Provider im Rahmen der Störerhaftung. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht 117(2): 19–27 and 105–115.
Mantz, R. 2013. Die Haftung des Betreibers eines gewerblich betriebenen WLANs und die Haftungsprivilegierung des § 8 TMG. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht – Rechtsprechung Report 13(12): 497–500.
Mantz, R., and T. Sassenberg. 2015a. Die Neuregelung der Störerhaftung für öffentliche WLANs. Computer und Recht 30(5): 298–306.
———. 2015b. Verantwortlichkeit des Access-Providers auf dem europäischen Prüfstand – Neun Fragen an den EuGH zu Haftungsprivilegierung, Unterlassungsanspruch und Prüfpflichten des WLAN-Betreibers. Multi Media und Recht 18(2): 85–90.
Mantz, R. 2016. Rechtssicherheit für WLAN? Die Haftung des WLAN-Betreibers und das McFadden-Urteil des EuGH. Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 27: 817–820.
Müller, V., and D-K. Kipker. 2016. Der Entwurf eines Zweiten Gesetzes zur Änderung des Telemediengesetzes – Hat die Bundesregierung eine zeitgemäße Angleichung des TMG verfehlt? Multi Media und Recht 19(2): 87–91.
Neuhaus, S. 2011. Sekundäre Haftung im Lauterkeits- und Immaterialgüterrecht. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Nordemann, J.B. 2016. Nach TMG-Reform und EuGH “McFadden” – Das aktuelle Haftungssystem für WLAN- und andere Zugangsprovider. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht 118: 1097–1103.
Obergfell, E.I. 2016a. Internettauschbörsen als Haftungsfalle für private WLAN-Anschlussinhaber. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 69(13): 910.
———. 2016b. Gerichtlich verordneter Passwortschutz für WLAN-Hotspots – Zur Reichweite der Access Provider-Privilegierung von kommerziellen WLAN-Anbietern. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 69: 3489–3492.
Obergfell, E.I., and A. Thamer. 2017. (Non-)Regulation of online platforms and internet intermediaries – The facts: Context and overview on state of play. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, Internationaler Teil 66: 201–206.
Ohly, A. 2014. Urheberrecht in der digitalen Welt – Brauchen wir neue Regelungen zum Urheberrecht und zu dessen Durchsetzung?, Gutachten F zum 70. Deutschen Juristentag. Munich: C.H.Beck.
———. 2015. Die Verantwortlichkeit von Intermediären. Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht 59(4): 308–318
Schmitz, S., and T. Ries. 2012. Three songs and you are disconnected from cyberspace? Not in Germany where the industry may ‘turn piracy into profit’ European Journal for Law and Technology, Vol. 3, No. 1. Available at. http://ejlt.org/article/view/116/190#_edn70
Schnabel, C., and B. Freund. 2010. Ach wie gut, dass niemand weiß… – Selbstdatenschutz bei der Nutzung von Telemedienangeboten. Computer und Recht, 718–721.
Sesing, A. 2015. Mehr Rechtssicherheit für Betreiber von (kostenlosen) Funknetzwerken? Multi Media und Recht 18(7): 423–427.
———. 2016. Verantwortlichkeit für offense WLAN – Auswirkungen der TMG-Reform auf die Haftung des Anschlussinhabers. Multi Media und Recht 19(8): 507.
Solmecke, C. 2015. Haftung bei offenem WLAN? Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik, 95.
Spindler, G. 2010. Haftung für private WLANs im Delikts- und Urheberrecht. Computer und Recht 25: 592–600.
———. 2014. Zivilrechtliche Sperrverfügungen gegen Access Provider nach dem EuGH-Urteil „UPC Telekabel. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, 826–835.
———. 2016a. Die geplante Reform der Providerhaftung im TMG und ihre Vereinbarkeit mit Europäischem Recht – Warum die beabsichtigte Reform ihr Ziel verfehlen wird. Computer und Recht, 48–56.
———. 2016b. Die neue Providerhaftung für WLANs – Deutsche Störerhaftung adé? Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 2449.
Stögmüller, T. 2014. LG München I: Vorlagefragen an den EuGH zur Verantwortlichkeit des Access-Providers eines offenen WLAN. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht. Praxis im Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht, 542–545.
Volkmann, C. 2015. Freies WLAN für einen Cappuccino. K&R, 289–291.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Busch, C. (2017). Secondary Liability for Open Wireless Networks in Germany: Balancing Regulation and Innovation in the Digital Economy. In: Dinwoodie, G.B. (eds) Secondary Liability of Internet Service Providers. Ius Comparatum – Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 25. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55030-5_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55030-5_15
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-55028-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-55030-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)